Sir, – I hope that those who shout the loudest in Dáil Éireann take the time out to read barrister Ronan McCrea’s eminently sensible article (“Government can avoid EU referendum nightmare”, Opinion, December 15th). He makes a compelling case for the Dáil to legislate for the measures agreed in Brussels.
While it is almost certain that some constitutional lawyers will pick holes in his well-reasoned arguments, how many of us would disagree with Mr McCrea when he says; “The Crotty decision was wrong. Requiring a referendum for each and every EU-related treaty change is inconsistent with the Constitution’s commitment to parliamentary democracy and is damaging to Ireland’s interests”?
It is also worth remembering, and he alludes to this in his article, that a referendum is a blunt instrument that carries great risk where complex issues are concerned. There will always be those who make it their business to create the kind of confusion that leads to endless, misleading debate and inevitably to a bad result for the country. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The enactment of law legitimises the use of coercive force by the State and its agents, over the citizens. We generally submit to the law, because we have a role in the enactment of the law (we elect the legislators).
Under a monarchy, or dictatorship, there is a general suspicion about the legitimacy of the law, and people do not submit to the law so easily.
It is astonishing that the barrister, Ronan McCrea (Opinion, December 15th), seems to have forgotten the origins of the system, in which he practises. It is true, that our democracy is indeed a republican version of the system, but the consent of the people is required for any law to be effective. Choosing a course of action, which expressly avoids the option of asking the people to submit, in case the majority choose to not submit, is fraught with peril. It sets the legal and political groups up as masters, rather than public servants. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Correspondents who refer to David Cameron’s “Churchill-like” stance (“Toxic reaction to Fianna Fail?”, December 14th) in his use of the veto at the EU summit, might reflect on the fact that the City of London’s bankers and hedge funds, whom he ostensibly sought to protect, provide Mr Cameron’s Conservative party with 50 per cent of its funding. In addition, Mr Cameron’s unilateral decision on behalf of the “UK” failed to take into account any wishes on the matter of the devolved parliaments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Churchill represented Britain, while Mr Cameron represented last week the interests of a London-based financial elite who bank-roll his party. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – These are strange times indeed. The Government doesn’t yet know whether it has committed the country to a referendum on recent agreements with our European partners, yet Minister Noonan (Front page, December 14th) already knows that any such referendum would include a question on leaving the euro.
Given that a referendum was required to enter the common currency, shouldn’t it be obvious to these fine minds that a referendum would be required to leave it? The alternative, I suppose, is that the Government is not really sure what it has signed us up to at all. – Yours, etc,